The last two paragraphs of Julia Preston’s article in today’s New York Times, “U.S. Set to Begin a Vast Expansion of DNA Sampling” (sub. req.), caught my eye.
Many groups warned that the measure would compound already severe backlogs in the F.B.I.’s DNA processing. Mr. Fram of the F.B.I. said there had been an enormous increase in the samples coming to the databank since it started to operate in 1998, but no new resources for the bureau’s laboratory. Currently about 150,000 DNA samples from convicted criminals are waiting to be processed and loaded into the national database, Mr. Fram said.
He said the laboratory had added robot technology to speed the processing. But in the “worst case scenario,” where the laboratory receives one million new samples a year, Mr. Fram said, “there is going to be a bottleneck.”(emphasis added)
The article weighs the benefits and pitfalls of making DNA collection as routine as taking fingerprints at the time of arrest. The article dwells on the fact that hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants will be the largest group affected. The article is worth a read to see some of the fault lines of where various interest groups come down on the issue. Given the exposure of recent problems at the Massachusetts DNA lab (which I blogged on here at BMG last week in relation to the Benjamin LaGuer case), the article got me thinking about the scientific implications of the vast new data bases being created.
So what is the relationship to black box voting? Fingerprint evidence, for all its limitations, is visible to the human eye. Anyone reasonably good at discerning patterns can see if a purported match is at least in the same ball park. DNA evidence, on the other hand, always requires the interpretation of an “expert” for its practical application. We are finding that true expertise is in fact severely lacking in the places (like the State Police crime lab) where the actual grunt work takes place. This does not mean I am against DNA evidence. Far from it, I am basically a believer in the promise of science. What it does mean is that if we are going to put our faith in DNA, then we also have to put more resources into the management and interpretation of evidence. This means bringing in basic management practices like quality control, rigorous oversight, and consequential accountability. It also means that DNA labs need to be independent of law enforcement agencies. Not, as the Massachusetts lab is now, essentially an arm of the State Police. That’s not going to happen without more resources.
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein taught us that science is a good servant but a treacherous master. DNA evidence, when presented to a jury, is extremely powerful. It also holds tremendous sway in the public imagination outside the courtroom, as the LaGuer case shows. Fifty bits of evidence could point towards innocence but one botched DNA test can trump all that. So when we hand people in white coats the responsibility for essentially determining questions of liberty or incarceration (in most states life and death), we have to build the kinds of checks and balances into that process that inspire public faith. The LaGuer debacle provides an excellent case study for why knowledge and competence must precede the application of science. Otherwise we’ll be lurching further into a braver and newer world (h.t., Aldous Huxley) than we might wish to contemplate. That is why a careful review of the LaGuer DNA analysis must be part of the promised comprehensive analysis of how the crime lab operates.
For those who haven’t read it already, William C. Thompson’s article, “Tarnish On The ‘Gold Standard’: Recent Problems In Forensic DNA Testing,” is well worth a look.
